☢ test - Í

jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses or ordinance violations, such offenses or violations may be tried upon a uniform traffic citation, summons, citation, or an accusation.’” Held, even prior to this law, a defendant charged with a municipal violation had no constitutionally guaranteed right to indictment or accusation; thus, a UTC could function as a valid charging instrument in municipal court for the violation of a municipal ordinance regulating underage possession of alcohol. Woodham v. State, 253 Ga.App. 112, 558 S.E.2d 454 (December 19, 2001). Conviction for making illegal left turn affirmed. Prosecution properly proceeded, even though officer included the incorrect numerical reference to the statute that Defendant was charged with violating, because the factual allegations in the uniform traffic citation alleged all the elements of the code section meant to be referenced. Citing Miller v. State , 182 Ga.App. 700, 356 S.E.2d 900 (1987). See also Hill v. State , 257 Ga.App. 82, 570 S.E.2d 395 (August 20, 2002) ( “[T]he state was not required to specify the statute the defendant allegedly violated. ‘It is the description of the crime, rather than the description and number of the section under which it appears in the code which furnishes the criterion for determining whether the indictment is good.’”). Smith v. State, 239 Ga.App. 515, 521 S.E.2d 450 (August 3, 1999). “‘It is not true that a prosecution must proceed upon the uniform traffic citation form that has initially been issued or that the prosecuting attorney has no authority to file a subsequent formal accusation. The State is not prohibited from issuing a subsequent accusation. The subsequent issuance of a formal accusation did not amend the uniform traffic citation, as contended by defendant. Rather, such accusation superseded any uniform traffic citation as the charging instrument.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ellerbee v. State, 215 Ga.App. 102, 104(3), 449 S.E.2d 874 (1994). And under OCGA § 17-7-71(a), an accusation need not be supported by an affidavit if the defendant has been previously arrested ‘in conjunction with the transaction charged in the accusation,’ which was the case here. [fn] See Blankenship v. State, 208 Ga.App. 710, 711, 431 S.E.2d 481 (1993).” Accord, Sevostiyanova v. State , 313 Ga.App. 729, 722 S.E.2d 333 (January 12, 2012). O. VARIANCE Moon v. State, 335 Ga.App. 642, 782 S.E.2d 699 (February 10, 2016). Aggravated child molestation, sexual exploitation of children and related convictions affirmed; no fatal variance where indictment alleged that defendant possessed a prohibited photograph , “but the evidence showed instead that the child pornography he possessed was in the form of digital images .” Agyemang v. State, 334 Ga.App. 137, 778 S.E.2d 387 (October 8, 2015). Simple battery conviction vacated and remanded for new trial on other grounds, but no fatal variance between accusation and evidence here. “Here, the evidence showed that Agyemang struck [victim/wife] Adu–Asah on the left arm and that it left a welt. ‘Whether or not such contact was “insulting and provoking” was a factual issue to be decided by the jury.’ (Citation omitted.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga.App. 164, 166(2), 526 S.E.2d 361 (1999) (evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of simple battery under OCGA § 16–5–23(a)(1) when defendant ‘repeatedly kicked, slapped, and grabbed his wife[,]’ as well as ‘nudged’ her with his foot and tried to ‘control’ her by grabbing her arm to prevent her from leaving). Here, we cannot say that there was a fatal variance. See Curtis v. State, 285 Ga.App. 298, 302(2), 645 S.E.2d 705 (2007) (‘A variance is not fatal if the accused is definitely informed as to the charges against him and is protected against another prosecution for the same offense’) (citation and punctuation omitted).” Martinez v. State, 325 Ga.App. 267, 750 S.E.2d 504 (November 21, 2013). Forgery convictions affirmed; contrary to defendant’s argument, fact that account number on checks wasn’t company’s real account number didn’t prevent the checks from “purport[ing] to have been made by” the company identified thereon. “[H]ere, the four checks at issue appear on their face to be drawn on Staff Zone's account at Wachovia. That the checking account number printed on the checks was not the correct account number was one of several ways in which Staff Zone's manager identified the checks as not being authentic company checks. Moreover, the logo and signatures on actual Staff Zone checks differed from those on the forged checks. But the indictment did not allege that the four checks contained Staff Zone's correct banking account number. Accordingly, we discern no actual, much less fatal, variance between the indictment and the evidence.” Juhan v. State, 322 Ga.App. 620, 744 S.E.2d 910 (July 2, 2013). Felony escape conviction affirmed; no fatal variance between proof and indictment, though indictment misstated the sentence defendant was serving when he left work camp. “The only purpose of the allegation in the indictment that Juhan was in custody for theft by taking ‘was to show lawful confinement, which was both alleged and proved without regard to the ... allegation,’ which was ‘merely surplusage.’ Zant v. Owens, 244 Ga. 494, 494-495 (260 S.E.2d 886) (1979). Accordingly, there was no fatal variance between the